Fortunately for the Paszkowski
family, Brad Willis, their
new counsel, proved a formidable
legal matador. His first
win, a large one, was obtaining
an injunction from Justice
James Foster of the Alberta
Queen's Bench. It barred
Immigration officials from
sending Paszkowski to Poland
on October 6, 1992 as they
had planned.

Willis
provided the court with
an affidavit from Paszkowski
chronicling his activities
in Canada and outlining
some of the reasons for
his fear about returning
to Poland. He had refused
to apply for a Polish passport,
he swore, because he "believed
and still believes that
if I returned to Poland
my life would be in danger
from my former colleagues
in the Polish Security Police.
I left Poland because of
my opposition to the then
communist government. Many
of my former colleagues
are still in positions of
power; many would fear exposure
by me. I personally know
that there are many political
murders occurring in Poland;
for example, the former
Polish prime minister, Piotr
Jaroszewicz and his wife
were found murdered on September
2, 1992. Furthermore, the
situation in Poland is still
so disorganized that the
police, to the extent that
they can be trusted, are
incapable of protecting
me or anyone".

The
statement provided to the
court by Dr. Alexander Matejko,
a much-respected retired
sociology professor at the
University of Alberta, probably
carried much weight with
the court. "According to
my best knowledge", Matejko
wrote, "it is reasonable
to assume that in the case
of Mr. Paszkowski being
deported to Poland he may
be endangered by his previous
colleagues and bosses because
the present day police force
in Poland is not strong
enough to provide him with
adequate protection during
the day and night." Matejko
has personal knowledge of
contemporary Poland because
of his frequent trips there
in recent years. A number
of other Canadians of Polish
origin who also know current
conditions there well have
expressed a similar view
to me. The threat remains
very real from SB members
there who would like to
settle accounts privately
for his work with CSIS against
them should he ever come
within their grasp.

With
the injunction in hand,
Willis applied again to
have Paszkowski released
on bail and was successful.
Edmonton Immigration officials
could hardly object further
to his release in the face
of the injunction from the
highest court in Alberta.
A new work permit was also
soon issued by the department,
renewable every three months.
In a petty gesture, it requires
Ryszard not to leave Edmonton
by more than 50 km. or to
take any academic, professional
or vocational training courses.
Despite the cold shoulder
many employers turned towards
him, he continues to be
a self-supporting taxpayer.

Immigration's
next initiative was to attack
the jurisdiction of the
Alberta Court to issue an
injunction against Bernard
Valcourt as the then Minister
of Immigration and his officials.
Willis demanded the right
to examine Robert Ferguson
on the long affidavit he
filed in support of the
Minister's motion to set
aside the injunction. Taking
the reasonable view that
Paszkowski's relationship
to CSIS was highly relevant
to whether the department
should now be allowed to
deport him, Willis also
attempted to question Ferguson
as the only official available
to him on various CSIS issues.
On the advice of the Justice
department lawyer, Ferguson
refused to answer all of
Willis' questions dealing
with that relationship.
The unanswered questions
related to some highly relevant
issues, including:

"Are
you able to confirm
that Mr. Paszkowski,
when he came to Canada
in 1984 under the name
of Robert Fisher, did
so with the assistance
of Canadian authorities?"

"
... what contact has
there been since 1984
between your department
and anyone from either
CSIS or the RCMP concerning
Mr. Ryszard Paszkowski?"

"Is
your department able
to confirm that between
1984 and 1986 when he
lived in Edmonton under
the name of Robert Fisher,
Mr. Paszkowski was paid
by CSIS?"

"Paszkowski
is being prosecuted
... under the Immigration
Act in that he obtained
permanent residence
by use of a false document
in 1984 ... are you
able to confirm that
... (that charge) was
stayed at the request
of your department?"

"Since May 29th, 1992,
when you took steps
that ultimately led
to issuing the warrant
of arrest for Mr. Paszkowski,
has your department
had any communication,
made any communication
to, or received any
communication from anybody
from CSIS with regard
to Mr. Paszkowski?"

The
position of Bruce Logan,
the Justice department counsel
for the Immigration Minister
at the discovery, was predictable.
Quite frustrated, Willis
finally asked Logan outright
if he would be objecting
to any questions of Ferguson
that related to any kind
of communication between
CSIS and the Immigration
Department. "That is correct,"
replied Logan.

"Just
to save time, I take it
that your position on behalf
of the Crown is that any
questions about Mr. Paszkowski's
relationship to CSIS would
be improper?"

"That
is correct," said the other.

Willis
later asked Ferguson to
ask CSIS whether it or any
persons known to it, such
as the RCMP, assisted Paszkowski
in arriving in Canada in
1984 using the name Robert
Fisher. This too was refused
by Ferguson on the advice
of Logan.

Finally,
Willis asked: "With regard
to all the questions I have
asked about what Mr. Ferguson's
department may know about
CSIS, I take it that you
would ... decline to make
any undertaking to ask CSIS
itself any of the matters
about which I have inquired,
is that correct?"

"That's
correct and an obvious corollary
to my earlier objection,"
said Logan.

Willis immediately filed
a motion seeking to compel
Ferguson to answer the disputed
questions. Judge Delmar
W. Perras of the Court of
Queen's Bench rejected his
application, basically on
the view that the questions
went beyond the essential
reasons why Justice Foster
had barred the Minister
of Immigration from removing
Paszkowski from Canada.
In short, Judge Perras thought
the seventeen questions
were irrelevant as to whether
Paszkowski should be removed.
The provincial Court of
Appeal later essentially
agreed with this finding,
so the matter was eventually
sent back to trial to continue.

In the spring of 1994, the
case was adjourned without
setting any date for continuation
pending the outcome of a
case in the Supreme Court
of Canada involving the
same essential issue, ie.
whether a provincial court
can hear a Charter of Rights
challenge to a provision
of the Immigration Act.
Argument has been heard
by the Supreme Court of
Canada on Reza vs. Minister
of Immigration and the
decision could come any
day. Depending on which
way it goes, Willis and
Paszkowski could soon find
themselves back in court.
If Reza loses, Paszkowski
would in all likelihood
see the injunction quashed
and Immigration officials
would soon be at his door
attempting to execute their
exclusion order.

Only two obstacles would
then face our Immigration
officials. The first is
that the two most logical
countries, Poland and Germany,
have both refused to accept
him. One Polish government
official recently told me
that he saw no reason to
"ruin Paszkowski's life"
by breaking up his family.

The second lies in the fact
that as of the spring of
1994 Paszkowski was evidently
able to apply under our
immigration laws for immigrant
status on the basis that
he has been rehabilitated
since his conviction in
Germany a full decade earlier.
The Immigration department's
manual boasts in politically
correct words that, "Canadian
immigration law recognizes
that a person's past criminal
convictions should not forever
bar his/her admission to
Canada if he/she appears
to have re-established himself/herself
as a law-abiding member
of society". It goes on
to set out three levels
of relief from the criminally
inadmissible provisions
depending on a person's
age at the time of conviction,
the seriousness of the offence
and the length of time which
has elapsed since termination
of the sentence imposed.
One section of the manual
speaks about the need for
five years to have elapsed
since the termination of
the sentence imposed, presumably
for very serious matters,
and two for less serious
ones. There is also provision
for a minister's permit
to allow someone to stay
where the statutory applicable
period has not expired.
Elsewhere, immigration officials
are directed to look at
various matters before recommending
rehabilitation, including
the person's efforts to
rehabilitate themselves,
employment, family life
and standing in the community.

In lighter moments, Paszkowski
jokes that our Immigration
bureaucrats would really
prefer to send him to Bosnia
if authorities there could
be persuaded to accept him.
He adds that he has never
held a legal passport in
his entire life. Communist
Poland wouldn't issue them
to most citizens, including
intelligence agents, for
fear they'd escape. Since
his arrival in the West,
all his travel has been
on illegally-obtained documents.
The one thing that he and
Ela are clearly concerned
about is that their personal
safety is best guaranteed
within Canada.

It was reported in the Polish
media in early 1994 that
the Canadian embassy rented
a ballroom in one of the
most expensive hotels in
downtown Warsaw to host
Polish citizens at an information
session on opportunities
to immigrate to Canada.
Those eligible to be considered
were those between 22- and
44-years of age; have completed
high school and hold a trade
school diploma or university
degree; speak English and/or
French; and have a required
amount of money. Why would
Immigration officials mount
two such expensive campaigns
simultaneously: one to deport
Paszkowski and devastate
his family, who have already
taken root in Canada; the
other inviting newcomers
from his former homeland?